|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NJ: Different Ideas Spread at Rally Calling for More Gun Safety in Elizabeth
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
About a dozen people gathered at Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza across from City Hall yesterday evening, with some calling for a city ordinance mandating gun safety vaults.
Salaam Ismial, director of the National United Youth Council, organized yesterday’s rally in the wake of the July 4 shooting death of Jose Oliver Torres Tineo. Ismial said he sent a letter to Mayor Christian Bollwage and City Hall on Sunday asking for Elizabeth residents to own and register safety vaults for their guns. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/14/2017)
|
“I am anti-gun, yes," Ismial, an Elizabeth resident, said at the rally. “I hate guns. However, this is not an infringement of the Second Amendment. But guns is an infringement of our moral rights because guns’ purpose is only to do one thing, and that is to maim and to kill.”
Incoherent.
A dimwit. And, he can VOTE. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
